In late April Assistant Secretary of State Murphy shuttled between various Middle Eastern capitals, but failed in his efforts to bring about progress in the peace process. Hopes were, pinned on the visit of Secretry of State Shultz who was in Israel on 10-11 May. Formally to take part in celebrations marking the 40th anniversary. of. the end of World War A Mr. Shultz discussed with the Israeli leaders tile possibility of including in the Palestinian delegation to the negotiations members of-the Palestine National Council. This was a return to a previous American suggestion of making a distinction between the PLO and the PNC In the followign interview, Mr. Shamir expressed hope that there has been no change in the U.S. position on an international peace conference for the Middle East. Text:
Mr. Shamir: Israel is strongly opposed to holding such a conference, because to the best of our knowledge, and in our opinion, such a conference will not bring peace any closer; rather, it will push it farther away. It is a way to evade holding direct negotiations with Israel, and it would serve as an arena for extremist hostile propaganda against Israel. Through all the years, this is the stance the United States has taken. It's hard for me to believe that it would alter this stance overnight.
Q: But there are pronouncements being made in Washington which don't absolutely dismiss this idea.
A: True, there's been a change in the statements; they don't utterly rule it out. But we still haven't heard them say they're not opposed to an international conference - a stance which they have taken firmly and absolutely in all international fora. I think Hussein is insisting on this because he promised Arafat to refrain from any direct negotiations with Israel, and (promised) to see to it that in any event the USSR would be an important factor in the Middle East peace processs.
Q: According to reports from Washington, the Americans are making their agreement to participate in an international conference contingent on the USSRs resuming diplomatic relations with Israel and opening its gates to Jewish emigration. If these conditions were to be met, would we still be opposed?
A: For the sake of accuracy, the U.S. has not made its agreement to an international conference contingent on these conditions. What it is saying is that if the USSR meets all these conditions, then it will have a greater. right to demand to be involved in the Middle East diplomatic process. That is our position, too. But when last I met with Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko, I explained our opposition to an international conference and told him that, given their current stand vis-a-vis Israel, they cannot be involved or be an important factor in the Middle East diplomatic process.
Q: Does this mean that if they were to alter their position, we would then agree to their participation in a conference?
A: First of all, we're opposed to an international conference. If they alter their stance, then we can talk with them about Middle East issues as well.